VIDEO: Judge forces Jehovah's Witness parents to allow transfusion for daughter with cancer!

by 3Mozzies 7 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • 3Mozzies
    3Mozzies

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bb-geM8ehk&feature=plcp

    Also here on Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/44370032

    Aired on Australian TV June 2nd 2012

    ______________________________

    *Girls parents refused transfusion on religious grounds

    *Girl diagnosed with cancer of blood and bone marrow

    *Without treatment girl will die..."within weeks"
    ______________________________________________________________

    DOCTORS made an urgent plea to the Supreme Court yesterday to help save the life of a Jehovah's Witness girl dying of leukaemia.

    Justice Richard White ordered the girl, 4, receive treatment, including a blood transfusion to which her parents had objected on religious grounds.

    Paediatric oncologist Dr Petra Ritchie, right, said without treatment the girl "will die . . . I would say in weeks".

    Dr Ritchie said that the girl, who was diagnosed with cancer of the blood and bone marrow on Monday, had a 90 per cent chance of survival if she received treatment immediately.

    Doctors had this week advised she needed a potentially life-saving blood transfusion but her parents objected on religious grounds.

    The parents' opposition prompted the hospital to petition the court saying that, without treatment, the girl would die in a matter of weeks.

    In emotional scenes yesterday, the girls' father wept as he spoke of his love for his daughter.

    But he explained that his family's faith prohibited blood transfusions. "We adhere to strict Bible principles and one of those is to abstain from blood," he said.

    "We want the best possible treatment for (her) and the hospital are doing a great job. The only thing we don't consent to is the issue of blood."

    The hearing came almost two years after the court made a legal-first ruling to save a boy, 10.

    Yesterday Justice White - who also heard the boy's case - said that treatment was in the girl's best interests.

    "Without a blood transfusion, there is a very high prospect that (she) will die," he said.

    The father told the court that his daughter's illness became known to them about six weeks ago when she reported a sore leg and recorded a temperature.

    However, doctors told the family it was a virus and it was not until they took her to hospital on Monday that a diagnosis of leukaemia was formed.

    She said the girl was at risk of organ damage to her heart, brain and kidney. Even if the girl survived the leukaemia without a blood transfusion, Dr Ritchie said she could suffer learning difficulties and subtle cognitive and kidney damage.

    Todd Golding, for the Woman's and Children's Health Network Inc, said Justice White should interpret the law the way he did in the 2010 case.

    "The court is to act in what are the best interests of the child.

    "The situation factually, as is clear from the evidence, (the girl) has leukaemia from which she will almost certainly die.

    "It is in the submission of the plaintiff that she receive a blood transfusion as soon as possible," he said.

    Ken Gluche, for the girl's parents, said his clients "deeply love their child".

    "It's not like they are acting with callous disregard for her wellbeing or her future," he said.

    "Clearly it's their genuine beliefs, it's something that they've been convinced to accept by anyone else, by the church or other believers."

    Robert Croser, for the child, said he had not formally interviewed his client because of her inability to appropriately instruct him. "Nobody on either side of the case wants (the girl) to die," he said.

    "Neither (the father) nor his wife and the wider Jehovah's Witness church would treat (the girl) any differently if the court orders she have the blood transfusion."

    Justice White handed down his decision immediately.

    "I'm satisfied that this is a matter that should be determined urgently because (the girl) suffers from leukaemia and that requires urgent treatment," he said. "I'm satisfied that it is appropriate and indeed necessary for (the girl) to receive a blood transfusion.

    "I'm satisfied that there are no alternatives to the provision of a blood transfusion. I'm satisfied that it's in (the girl's) best interest to received the blood transfusion despite her parents' objections.

    "Without a blood transfusion there's a very high prospect (the girl) will die and that the provision of a blood transfusion would reduce that prospect markedly," he said.

    ************************************************************
    heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/judge-forces-jehovahs-witness-parents-to-allow-transfusions-for-daughter-with-cancer/story-e6frf7l6-1226380955006?sv=1f59ea9b9d31254af49c7ef33b543fdd


    Listen to the comment from the local elder & JW friend quoted at 1min 12sec. What morons!

    3Mozzies

  • Bells
    Bells

    Thank goodness the court were able to intervene! This infuriates me! As a 2 year old, I was required to have several transfusions as a result of suffering 3rd degree burns. Despite what the wts tells its followers, there was no 'alternative' treatment that would have allowed me to live. The same is the case with this poor child needing a transfusion due to lukeimia. Witnesses spout that crap about there being 'risks' without having any idea what they are talking about! (how can they - did they study medicine at university? Oh no, that's right...). What medical risk is there anyway that is more significant than the 90% chance of death!?

    my opinion is that the blood thing is a bit mad - and an incorrect interpretation of the bible, but that's just my opinion and if an adult wishes to die instead of receive blood because that's what they honestly believe (not because they are more worried about being disfellowshipped than dying), then hey, each to their own. But to make that choice for a child who has not yet been given the opportunity to decide what their beliefs are, I feel is just criminal. I often think that if my parents had been JWs when I was a baby, then I wouldn't be here today - even though I have grown up to not believe anyway.

    I also think there is an 'out' if they wanted to protect thenchildren ofntheir congo anyway. I mean, if someone takes blood before the know about 'the truth' and then becomes a JW, the fact that they've previously received blood is not in itself a problem. So im sure they could come up with some special spin on it that allows unbaptised children to receive blood at the request of a doctor or something if they are too young to understand 'gods law' and make a choice. I understand them not allowing the parents to ok it - but if a doctor okays it, it's not going to create a problem for the parents or the child within the congregation anyway right?

    Allowing innocent children to die unecessarily - now that is what I'd consider to be 'arcaic' and 'medieval'

    Argh, rant, sorry. Seething!!

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    A great news article and a fantastic decision by the Court in Australia and SHAME on Jehovah's Witnesses and their wicked policy on blood transfusions as it affects their children.

    Whatever you make of the scriptural arguments for and against, blood transfusions should only be a conscience decision at the very best and ONLY FOR BAPTISED ADULT witnesses, never unbaptised children. The heinous Watchtower Society and its brainwashed, fanatical elders and parents should leave the little children out of it, who are not baptised and not under Christian law.

  • yadda yadda 2
  • Gayle
    Gayle

    The children get such a horrrible brunt of this religion. Most of the leaders, COs, DOs, headquarters staff and GB never have children.

  • Dogpatch
    Dogpatch

    "Neither (the father) nor his wife and the wider Jehovah's Witness church would treat (the girl) any differently if the court orders she have the blood transfusion."

    Justice White handed down his decision immediately.

    More evidence they arte not into DFing or DAing for taking blood in emergencies... unless it's willful apostasy against their teachings.

    Randy

    www.ajwrb.org

  • Dogpatch
  • shopaholic
    shopaholic

    Hoping that all of you will post this video on Facebook. A lot of people just don't know true dangers of this religion.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit